Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Apr 1931

Vol. 14 No. 14

Land Bill, 1930—Committee.

Sections 1, 2 and 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
(3) All moneys collected in respect of purchase annuities created under this section shall be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer in such manner as the Minister for Finance shall appoint by regulations made by him under this Act.

I move amendment No. 1, which reads:

Section 4, sub-section (3). To delete all after the word "benefit" in line 21 down to the end of the sub-section, and to substitute therefor the words "of the Land Bond Fund."

As I understand the matter, this money referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 4 is money that was formerly handed over to the Congested Districts Board for the various purposes concerned, that is, for land purchase and land improvement in these districts. This section entitles the Minister for Finance to take that money out of the congested districts and use it for current expenditure. It seems to me that that is an extremely highhanded view, if I am correct. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to give some explanation. The Congested Districts Board carried out a great many improvements in the West of Ireland, and it got money from the British Exchequer for these improvements. I presume that this money is lying up in one way or another, and that it is now proposed to take that money away from the congested districts, for which it was originally intended, and to use it in the current Budget expenditure. I think that is a very wrong thing, and my amendment is to delete all after the word "benefit" in line 21 down to the end of the sub-section, and to substitute therefore the words "of the Land Bond Fund."

The amendment would leave that money which was originally allotted to the congested districts in a fund which could be used at any time for helping the people in the congested districts to improve their land or to purchase land or to build houses or for any particular purpose for which it might be allotted. That is a fair and straight way of using the money. It would not be fair to take that money which was originally allotted to the congested districts, and use it for all sorts of purposes outside these districts.

This section must be read in conjunction with the following section, Section 5. These annuities are repayments of moneys expended by the C.D.B. out of their own funds, and there is really no authority in law at present for the disposal of the moneys realised on these lands. Consequently, it is necessary for the Minister for Finance to make a regulation for the purpose of disposing of the moneys arising out of the sale of lands purchased by the C.D.B. out of their own funds. The property of the C.D.B. other than lands, has already been transferred to the Free State Exchequer by the Land Law Commission Act, 1923, Section 7, I think. The proceeds of the sale of all land formerly the property of the Board that had been acquired other than by the payment of advances under the Land Purchase Acts are by Section 5 transferred to the Exchequer.

That is my statement.

Yes, but you see the Land Commission at present have no authority whatever for utilising these moneys. It is prescribed by the Oireachtas that in such cases as this it is a matter for the Minister for Finance to make rules and regulations for the disposal of these surplus moneys, and this section gives the Minister the requisite authority.

The Parliamentary Secretary says that there is no authority at present for the utilisation of this money. My amendment proposes a definite way in which the Minister could use the money. He could use it for the benefit of the Land Bond Fund and then it will be fixed for the place to which it was originally allotted. Under this section he can use it for any purpose he chooses, such as the building of houses in Dublin. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he thinks that is proper or right. Is it not much better that the money should go to the districts to which it was originally allotted, the congested districts, instead of transferring it to other counties? It may be said that the Minister would naturally apply it to this purpose. If that is so, why not put it in the Land Bond Fund? Why put it into the Exchequer, out of which he can apply it to anything he likes? Some other Minister may think quite differently He may think it more necessary to build houses or improve land in Dublin. Why not accept the amendment under which the money is placed in the Land Bond Fund? I see no objection to that.

The Senator should know that the Land Bond Fund only applies to bonds issued under the Land Act of 1923 and consequently, under no possible circumstances could you apply to the Land Bond Fund the annuities of the moneys advanced by the C.D.B. out of their own funds. The Land Bond Fund applies only to bonds issued under the Land Act of 1923. There must be some authority for the disposal of these moneys, and the Minister for Finance, according to the regulations of the Oireachtas, is the only person who can make rules and regulations for the disposal of these moneys. So far as the congested counties areas are concerned, it is a matter for the Land Commission each year to estimate for whatever moneys are required for the purpose of carrying out improvement or other works in the area known hitherto as the congested counties areas, and that is done each year by the Land Commission in their estimate. As a matter of fact, practically all the moneys realised out of the assets of the C.D.B. are utilised for this purpose by the Land Commission and go back each year on the Land Commission Vote as an appropriation-in-aid. The Senator can satisfy himself on that point if he studies the Land Commission Estimate.

All Senator Moore wants to do is to suggest a specific fund where this money could be lodged so that legislatively it would be applied to the fund from which it sprang. Senator Moore does not want this money to go into the Exchequer, but that it should be properly applied in some form. Will the Parliamentary Secretary suggest any alteration in the amendment whereby it could be specifically applied to any particular fund so as to ensure its being used for the purposes covered by the Bill itself?

That is not for me to suggest. That is a matter for the Minister for Finance. According to the Oireachtas regulations it is a matter for the Minister for Finance to make rules for the disposal of these moneys. He is the only Minister who has authority to make rules for the disposal of these surplus funds.

Whilst that is fundamentally so in the broad aspect, still within the Parliamentary Secretary's province he has the control of certain funds or he has his ordinary Departmental work to carry out. Under this Bill certain things are to happen. I think it is more or less an unconscious evasion to say it all lies in the hands of the Minister for Finance. I think in dealing with this Bill we might be able, with the help of the Parliamentary Secretary, to ensure that this money would go back to do the most good to the people affected by this Bill and we should try to prevent it going back into the general treasury fund.

I do not know that there is any point in this, because actually the fact is that more money is paid out of the Treasury for the congested areas than will be collected under this, and there is no use in earmarking the collection for a specific purpose when the work which that specific fund would undertake is already being done by the general exchequer out of estimates passed every year. Any improvements necessary in the congested areas are carried out by moneys supplied from the general exchequer, and there is no point in segregating these particular moneys from moneys that go into the exchequer.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section put and agreed to.
Section 5 and 6 put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Where the Land Commission have resold or shall hereafter resell a parcel of land under the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, 1919, at an enhanced price and such enhanced price is due in whole or in part to expenditure on improvements on or in respect of such land made by the Land Commission after the 1st day of April, 1922 (whether before or after the passing of this Act), out of moneys provided or recouped by the British Government, so much of the purchase annuity paid into the purchase annuities fund or the land bond fund (as the case may be) in respect of such price as is attributable to such expenditure shall be paid or credited to the British Government in such manner as the Minister for Finance shall appoint by regulations made by him under this section and such regulations may prescribe the method of ascertaining the proportion of the purchase annuity attributable to such expenditure.

I move amendment No. 3:—

To delete the section.

As I understand the section, it deals with certain moneys provided by the Treasury of what was the United Kingdom for soldiers and sailors under the Act of 1919 for the building of houses and such like things. Since then that money was used up for certain purposes and finally the State had a hand in it and there were some buying and selling, and some profit made, and this, it is now provided, should be handed over to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom. At least the section reads so to me. It seems to me quite clear that that money, which was a sort of profit, should be handed back to the British Exchequer. I take objection to that, because I do not see why people should be so anxious to hand money back to the British Exchequer. If there was a settlement in regard to annuities sent over to Britain then we might be rather scrupulous about it, and perhaps pay this small sum back without any question. But considering these large sums are handed over quite improperly to the British Government, I can see no reason why we should pass this section, which enables us to hand over this sum. I am perpetually opposing handing over money which Ministers are perpetually lavishing on the British Government. That is what is proposed in this section here, and that is why I proposed it should be deleted from the Bill.

The money which it is proposed to hand back to the British Government is not a profit which has been made out of the resale of the land to the soldiers and sailors. The money which it is proposed to hand back is money which this country honestly owes to the British Government——

We are always told that. That is the old story.

I think the Senator agreed with me at one stage, but unfortunately he has retrograded since then. The sum of about £115,000 was advanced by the British Government, or rather by a Department of the British Government, the Colonial Office, for the purpose of carrying out improvements on land acquired under the Sailors and Soldiers Act, 1919. Of that sum, £100,000 was given by way of a free grant, and the condition was made that £15,000 of the total would be paid back to the British Government in the form of annuities. These are the annuities referred to in the Bill. They do not represent profits made out of the resale of these lands to the soldiers and sailors. It is money owed to the British Government, advanced by the British Government, and which this country is under an obligation to repay, and if this country attempted to retain that money it would be acting very dishonestly, and I am sure the Senator would not stand for dishonesty in matters of that kind.

I have no intention of acting dishonestly. Any money due should be paid back, but from investigations I have made in this matter it is certainly clear it is not due at all. The Parliamentary Secretary said it was an agreement that the British Government should receive this money back. I would like to ask where that comes in and by what act or agreement it was brought about. Is it an agreement made by a Minister who trots over to England? Is this such an agreement or is it an agreement written in black and white in the manner in which agreements ought to be made? If it is a proper agreement made in proper circumstances and for which this country is liable, then I have no objection to the money being paid. But if it is one of those sort of agreements made on other matters, I do object.

There is no question of agreement.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how the agreement came about?

I did not say a word about an agreement. This is money advanced in the ordinary way by the Land Commission for the purpose of carrying out certain works.

The Minister said an agreement was made by which £15,000 was to be repaid in annuities.

The tenants entered into an agreement with the Land Commission to repay this money.

Where is the agreement by which the money was to be handed over to the British Government?

It was advanced by the British Government for the purpose of carrying out specific work which the Land Commission carried out, and a certain condition was made that a portion of the money should be repaid.

With whom was that made? Where is that condition?

With the tenants. Surely the Senator understands the ordinary relationship between the Land Commission and the tenants when reselling lands to them? They enter into an agreement to repay the money advanced to them.

Certainly, but not to pay it to the British Government. No such agreement was made with regard to the other annuities. If there was an exception in this case let us see it and hear what it is.

This is a commitment of the British Treasury for the provision of land for the Soldiers and the Sailors and the Land Commission merely acts as agents in this matter.

Was it not a free grant from the British Government?

The British Government advanced £115,000, of that sum £100,000 was a free gift and £15,000 was to be paid back in annuities.

Senator Moore's point is, I think, that he wants to know where that agreement is to be found in regard to the repayment of that £15,000. As I understand it, the Parliamentary Secretary's statement is that £115,000 was advanced and that £100,000 of that was a free grant and that £15,000 of that fell as a responsibility on the tenants and is collected by the Land Commission and transferred to the British Government. Senator Moore wants to know if this agreement is in existence, and where it is to be found.

I made it perfectly clear. This is mere quibbling.

I resent the Parliamentary Secretary saying this is mere quibbling. We asked a straight question. To say that we are quibbling is quite wrong. It is the Parliamentary Secretary that is quibbling.

I made it quite clear the record is in the Land Commission.

The Parliamentary Secretary did not say that before.

I say that in the Land Commission there must be some international arrangement and some international agreement. If the Minister can quote that agreement showing that this money is due well and good.

There is no question of any international arrangement. The position simply was that the Land Commission acted as agents for the British Government in carrying out a certain responsibility which it had to its own soldiers and sailors. Under the Sailors and Soldiers Land Act of 1919 the land was acquired specially for the purpose of making provision for ex-soldiers and sailors who had fought in the Great War. I am not certain at the moment of the amount of money involved, but I think it was in or about £115,000. The sum of £100,000 was advanced by way of a free grant, and the balance of £15,000 was to be repaid. As I have said, the Land Commission simply acted as agents for the British Government. If Senator Moore is curious enough he can see in the Land Commission a record of the whole transaction. He can there verify the statement that I have made. The Land Commission itself, in the case of the re-sale of lands, does in the ordinary course of its work make advances for the improvement of estates. Invariably a portion of the money is given by way of a free grant, the remainder being repaid by way of annuities. Transactions of this kind happen daily in connection with the work of the Land Commission.

The Parliamentary Secretary has now made a perfectly lucid statement in connection with the matter, but I want to stress the point that in his earlier statements he did not say where the record was. I do not like to be accused of quibbling, or to hear my colleagues accused of quibbling. We did not do any quibbling. The quibbling has been on the other side.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
(1) The Land Commission shall from time to time publish in the prescribed manner lists (in this Act referred to as lists of vested holdings) of tenanted land consisting of holdings in respect of which particulars have been furnished in pursuance of sub-section (1) of Section 40 of the Land Act, 1923, and shall in every such list declare in respect of the tenanted land comprised in such list the appointed day (which may be previous to, coincident with, or subsequent to the date of the publication of such list) for such land.
(3) Every tenant of a holding included in a list of vested holdings (whether such tenant is or is not named in such list) or, where the tenant of a holding is named in such list and is dead on the appointed day for such holding, the personal representative of such tenant shall be deemed to have entered on the appointed day into a subsequent purchase agreement for the purchase of such holding from the Land Commission at the standard price and sub-sections (2), (3), and (5) of Section 28 of the Land Act, 1923, shall apply in respect of such holding in like manner as they apply in respect of the holdings mentioned in those sub-sections save that such application shall not be prevented or limited by sub-section (6) of the said Section 28.
(7) Sub-section (2) of Section 73 of the Land Act, 1923, shall apply in respect of holdings included in a list of vested holdings with the modification that the declaration by the Land Commission mentioned in paragraph (a) of the proviso to the said sub-section may be made either before or after the appointed day.

I move amendment 4:—

Section 9, sub-section (1). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "the appointed day to be not later than four months after the passing of this Act."

This section refers to the vesting of land. I am putting forward this amendment as a help to the Minister and not in antagonism to him or to the Bill. What I am anxious for is to have a specific date laid down in the Bill. As I pointed out in the Second Reading debate, we have been hearing ever since the Wyndham Act was passed in 1903 that the land question was about to be settled. We were told that thirty years ago, but still it remains unsettled. Some of it, of course, has been settled, but a great deal of it has not been. The position had become so bad that the Minister for Agriculture was obliged to introduce his Land Bill of 1923. Again, we were told that the land question was to be settled up finally. We understood at the time that the only thing that prevented the question being settled definitely was the fixing of the appointed day. That was not done at that time, with the result that four Land Acts have since been passed. Now we have this Land Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary told us on the last day that matters had now proceeded so far that at last the Land Commission will be able to vest the land in themselves and afterwards in the tenants. I have no doubt that he wishes to do that and is anxious to do it.

I pointed out before that the delay that is taking place in settling the question was due to obstruction from the Land Commission and various other people, such as agents, solicitors, barristers, and officials of the Land Commission. All these classes of people combined together to obstruct and prevent a settlement of it. This has been going on for nearly thirty years, and my belief is that another thirty years will elapse before it is finally settled. Lawyers have told me that it will be another thirty years before it is settled. The Land Commission have been receiving payments amounting to about £300,000 a year because this question remains unsettled. That is a regular blister on the finances of this country. I would like to see the question settled as soon as possible. I would like to see the Land Commission finished with and dissolved as soon as it can be done.

My object in moving the amendment is that the appointed day shall not be later than four months after the passing of this Act. A later amendment of mine deals with practically the same thing. One amendment deals with vesting by the Land Commission of the land in themselves; the second one deals with the vesting back of the land in the tenants. I want to have the land vested in the Land Commission themselves within a period of four months after the passing of the Act. If that is done we will know where we are. The Parliamentary Secretary has already told us that immediately the Act is passed he hopes to be able to publish a long list of tenancies that will be vested in the Land Commission, and a little later he hopes to be able to vest the land in the tenants themselves. The Parliamentary Secretary has stated that as being his intention. His reputation as a Parliamentary Secretary depends to a certain extent on that. I imagine he will find great opposition in doing that, and my object in bringing forward my amendments is to help him. If these amendments are passed and definite dates fixed their effect will probably be to end the land question to a great extent in this country. I do not think the question will be settled in any other way.

If the Senator thinks that the wrongs of thirty years, as he calls them, can be settled in the period of four months or eight months, then all I can say is that he expects the officials of the Land Commission suddenly to be turned into miracle workers. I would like to correct one mis-statement the Senator made. He absolved the landlords from all blame in supplying the Land Commission with incorrect particulars of their estates. He seemed to put all the blame on solicitors, barristers and Land Commission officials.

I mentioned the agents of estates, or people managing estates.

As an actual fact, one of the prime causes of delay is due to this, that as regards the overwhelming majority of returns supplied to the Land Commission by landlords the particulars given were found to be inaccurate. As a result of an analysis that was made of returns furnished it was found that only in eight per cent. of the cases had landlords, agents or other people responsible supplied correct particulars to the Land Commission. In view of that, Senators will be able to realise the amount of additional work that was thrown on Land Commission officials. It would be quite impossible to fix the appointed day within four months in respect of the one hundred thousand tenants that are still to be vested. I have already stated on many occasions in the Dáil, and in the Seanad, that I hope to be able to complete the vesting of every one of these one hundred thousand tenants within a period of twelve months from the passing of the Act. I cannot go beyond that.

If the Parliamentary Secretary will agree to insert twelve months in the Bill I will accept that.

I am not prepared to do that, and therefore cannot accept the amendment. I hope that if the Bill is law by the 1st May that a big number of lists will be published on that day. From the point of view of the Land Commission that is a convenient day because it happens to be a gale day. I hope that the balance of the lists will be published on the next gale day on the 1st of November.

I have been told by responsible individuals who have a good deal to do with the administration of the Land Acts that the real reason for the delay that has taken place in vesting is due to the fact that there are not a sufficient number of examiners for the work that is to be done. I have been told that if there were more examiners the work could be speeded up considerably. At present I am told that the staff is entirely inadequate. Of course, I have no personal knowledge of that, and I would be glad to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say.

Even admitting for the moment that the statement is correct, that the staff of examiners is inadequate for the amount of work to be done, that has not delayed vesting. The examiners only deal with the investigation of title, and that takes place subsequent to the vesting. When this Bill becomes law it is proposed to increase the number of examiners in the Land Commission very substantially, so that the investigation of title and other matters for which the examiners are responsible will be speeded up considerably.

I have only to say that I regret the Parliamentary Secretary will not do so. He says he wants to evade fixing a date. I am afraid that will result in another 30 years being spent at the work. The Land Commission has been in existence for thirty years, and, if the Parliamentary Secretary does not think 30 years sufficient to settle the question, I do not agree with him. I had a considerable amount of work in connection with land, considering that I had estates to deal with, and I know personally all the delays that take place. The Parliamentary Secretary says that the agents were wrong in their returns. Perhaps they were. I have no doubt that they were wrong in some cases. But what about the solicitors? Does he not know that solicitors and barristers held these matters up, and that the lawyers in the Land Commission held them up, and that it was impossible to get them to settle anything? From my own experience I found great difficulty in getting anyone to do anything, as there was every sort of evasion practised.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment 5:

Section 9, sub-section (3). After the word "holding" in line 25 to insert the words "to which sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Land Act, 1923, as amended and extended by the Land Act, 1927, applies."

I will not delay the Seanad with a very elaborate explanation of the amendment. A list of holdings will be published. These holdings are vested in the Land Commission. Sub-section (3) says that every tenant in the list shall be deemed to have entered into a subsequent purchase agreement. That means that he shall be deemed to be on the road to buy the fee-simple of his land. My object is to prevent certain classes of people becoming fee-simple owners. These are the people to whom Section 24 (1) of the Act of 1923 does not apply. I only want to have vested these people to whom Section 24 (1) could apply, and I want to have excluded from subsequent purchase agreement the persons mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g). The main classes of people I want excluded from the benefits of the Land Purchase Acts are those persons who were tenants of land that was not substantially agricultural or pastoral—the grazing men. I do not want to make these men who, year in and year out, took land on 12 months' letting at high rents, who were simply cattle-drovers, and were the cause of a frightful lot of misery in this country, becoming owners in fee-simple of what will amount to big estates, seeing that the amount of land available is so limited. If the amendment is accepted my object will be carried out, and these graziers will be prevented from taking the first steps to becoming owners in fee, and will not be allowed to enter into subsequent purchase agreements.

I assume that the Senator has studied this section closely?

Closely.

I do not consider this amendment necessary at all, because the class of lettings to which the Senator referred are automatically excluded. The section only covers the class of tenants referred to in Section 24 (1) of the Act of 1923.

My amendment can make no difference then. Why not accept it?

It is not necessary.

It is necessary in this way: supposing one grazier was included in such a list he could enter into a subsequent agreement.

No man holding land for 11 months can be included.

I did not say the 11 months' system or refer to temporary lettings. What I say is, that through the country there are numbers of people who hold land under the 12 months' system, and from year to year, who were never allowed to have a fair rent fixed because they were the owners of pastoral holdings upon which they did not live. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this amendment very carefully. I do not wish to say that the Parliamentary Secretary has not studied the matter, because I know that he has given the greatest possible study and attention to this Bill; still, there are practical men sometimes who can see things that a Minister cannot see. The people I want to prevent from becoming fee-simple owners of what would amount to estates are those who had yearly lettings of grazing ranches, who were never allowed to fix a fair rent on these ranches, because they were excluded under the Act of 1881. Every Senator from the country will understand when I say that these people never had the right to fix a fair rent. They never had tenant rights, although they were from year to year tenants of the land. I do not want that class, under any circumstance, or by any mistake, or by any sort of political pressure hereafter to be able to become fee-simple owners of what will amount to estates seeing that the quantity of land available is so limited.

As a matter of fact, the amendment would not exclude this class of people, because they are already covered by the particular sub-section of Section 24 which the Senator quoted.

They are entitled to be treated as ordinary tenants. It is a matter for the Land Commission to decide whether they are genuine and bona fide tenants or not.

If the land is tenanted land. Section 24 (2) says that the foregoing section shall not apply to any land which is not at the passing of the Act of 1923 substantially agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral in character, or any land comprised in a holding, the main object of the letting of which was for a residence, and which, at the date of the passing of this Act, retained its residential character.

Therefore Section 24 (1) does not apply to these grazing holdings. I do not want any tenant to be deemed to have entered into any purchase agreement which would be preparatory to making him a fee-simple owner if he is a man of that character.

If he is a man of that character he is automatically excluded.

Amendment put and negatived.

Cathaoirleach

The next amendment, No. 6, is outside the scope of the Bill because it proposes to vary the standard price of land.

I move Amendment No. 7, as follows:—

Section 9, Sub-section (3). After the figure "(3)" in line 32 to insert in brackets the figure "(4)."

If Senators look at the Bill they will see that this refers to the same sub-section which I have already read. Reference is made in that sub-section to sub-sections (2), (3) and (5) of Section 28 of the Act of 1923 and I want to include amongst them sub-section (4) of the same section. That sub-section states that every holding to which the section applies shall be vested in the tenant by the Land Commission by vesting order or otherwise. My object is that, once the lands become vested in the Land Commission by the publication of the list and when, by the operation of Section 9 (3) these people are deemed to have entered into subsequent purchase agreements, we should finish the work and let the lands vest in them at once under sub-section (4). I do not know why the Parliamentary Secretary included sub-sections (2), (3) and (5) and excluded sub-section (4), unless it had something to do with a matter which he has already denied and which I do not want to press. There may be some holdings in respect of which he does not want to have purchase agreements entered or to have them vested. If the Parliamentary Secretary is dealing with holdings to which Section 24 (1) applies I do not see why they should not be vested immediately after agreement to vest.

The Senator is probably not aware that sub-section (4) was repealed by the Act of 1927.

I know that.

There is no object in an amendment of that kind because the whole question of vesting is covered in Section 7, and the Senator will see that the points to which he refers are covered by that section.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment 8, as follows:—

Section 9, sub-section (3). To delete all after the word "sub-sections" in lines 34-35 down to the end of the sub-section.

Section 28 deals with subsequent purchase agreements. It says that all subsequent purchase agreements up to the passing of the Act shall not affect any lands to which sub-section (6) applies. The lands to which that section applies are holdings in respect of which the standard price exceeds £3,000. According to the Bill it would be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to vest holdings in respect of which the purchase annuity exceeds £3,000. The Parliamentary Secretary wants that power unshackled. I would ask the Seanad not to give him that power and to strike out that saving clause. I ask Senators to say that sub-section (6) of the Act of 1923 is a very useful sub-section, and that we really cannot afford under any circumstances to give more than £3,000 of public money to any one man for the purchase of land.

This question is dealt with under sub-section (11). A holding which would come under the terms of sub-section (6) of Section 28 of the Act of 1923 was automatically vested in the Land Commission, and under Section 11 they have power to retain that holding. Where the holding comes within the meaning of sub-section (6) it can be retained by the Land Commission. There is nothing wrong. The provision there is countered by the provision in Section 11, so that it is not necessary to delete the words at all.

I hope that Senators will not think that I have been endeavouring to mislead them. I said that I did not want to give the Land Commission power to advance more than £3,000 to any one man. Senator Wilson cannot have read Section 11 very accurately, because it merely says that where a holding included in a list of vested holdings would be a retained holding within the meaning of sub-section (6) of Section 28 of the Act of 1923, if that sub-section applied to it, such holding may, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, be retained by the Land Commission.

That is it.

I submit for the consideration of the House that it should not be in the power of the Land Commission or any other body to advance money for the purchase of land in this country beyond the sum of £3,000. I have another amendment, if Senator Wilson will look at it, to change the word "may" to "shall."

Cathaoirleach

When we come to that we will discuss it.

I would ask the House not to give power in this country, where land and resources are so limited, to any person to get an advance of more than £3,000 for the purchase of any one holding, because this thing will certainly lead to political corruption hereafter.

The Senator does not, I am afraid, understand the Bill. This Bill will automatically vest all these holdings that are supplied in the landlords' list. If the clause to which the Senator objects were excluded from the Bill you would hold up the process of vesting holdings until an investigation took place as to the amount of the advance on a certain holding. We are trying to vest all the holdings automatically. We are giving power to vest all the holdings and you are going to hold it up.

There are two kinds of vestings. There is the vesting in the Land Commission, there is the subsequent purchase agreement, and there is the vesting in the tenant. I do not want to hold up vesting in the Land Commission. What I do want is to hold up vesting in any man who wants more than £3,000 to purchase his land.

Amendment put and negatived.

Amendment No. 9 deals with practically the same matter and I accept the decision on the previous amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 10:

Section 9, sub-section (3). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "provided always that in case the standard price exceeds £3,000 the amount to be advanced by the Land Commission shall not exceed £3,000 and the difference shall be paid by the tenant."

This amendment brings up in a net form what I have been contending for. The House has already decided against my contention, and has allowed the Land Commission in certain cases to vest any tenant whose holding costs more than £3,000 or the purchase money of whose holding would exceed £3,000. You have now decided that such a man can have his holding vested. Very well; if a holding is vested in a man whose purchase money is £4,000 or £5,000, I submit for the consideration of the House that out of public moneys such man should not get more than £3,000, and that he should provide the balance in cash. This is not a new thing in land legislation, because, under the Church Act of 1870—and I have personal experience of this—the tenants of glebe lands were obliged to put down 25 per cent. in cash. The way the balance was negotiated was that they gave a simple mortgage for the remaining 75 per cent. If a man's purchase money is more than £3,000, I think that £3,000 is enough public money to give to him.

This is really an amendment which Senator Comyn discussed on a previous amendment. The Land Commission, of course, has always had discretion with regard to the amount of money to be advanced in respect of any holding or any number of holdings. I do not propose to accept the amendment, because if I did it would remove that discretion from the Land Commission. There are cases where it is advisable, even in the interests of the State itself, to increase the amount. There are many cases where land is not required for the relief of congestion, and where it would be advisable for the Land Commission to increase the amount advanced. In any event it is essentially a matter in which somebody has to exercise a discretion. The Land Commission has hitherto exercised a discretion in that matter, and I do not propose to take it away from them.

Amendment put and negatived.

I move amendment No. 11:

Section 9, sub-section (7). After the word "modification" in line 55, to insert the words "that a court letting shall be deemed a contract of tenancy and"

The object of the amendment is that a letting by the court in a cause or matter shall be in the same position as an ordinary letting. There are a number of cases in which that would be very just. I think there are also a number of cases in which it would be a great injustice to exclude court lettings from the benefit of the Act. They used to be included under the Act of 1896. There were then decisions one way and the other, and the final conclusion was, I think, that a court letting was not a tenancy at all. As a result of that, there is no uniformity of practice. I would urge on the House to accept this view that, in order to have uniformity of practice and in order to prevent manifest injustices, one of which was mentioned in the Dáil and others of which I know myself in various parts of the country, it would be as well to regard these court lettings as ordinary tenancies. If the Parliamentary Secretary is opposed to the amendment in its present form, I think he ought to take power to regard them as ordinary tenancies so as to prevent the injustices which were mentioned when the Bill was being debated in the Dáil.

I consider that it would be grossly unfair to treat court lettings as ordinary tenancies. Court lettings are made usually on behalf of minors or lunatics. Every Senator will agree, without my dilating on this point at any length, that it would be very unfair in these circumstances to treat these lettings as ordinary tenancies, or to give tenants who have lettings on these lands for the two or three years they are under the control of the courts, the same rights as ordinary tenants. Court lettings, in the overwhelming majority of cases, are of that character. I might remind the Senator that in the majority of cases these lettings are for grazing, which he objected to so vehemently a little while ago.

There are a great many of them let to one of the sons or daughters of the family, where there is administration, and they are not always of grass land. They are sometimes of tillage land. What I put to the House was that I would leave the court of the Land Commission power to determine whether they would treat such a letting in a proper case as an ordinary tenancy. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would accept an amendment on these lines later.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Cathaoirleach

Amendment 12 is out of order. It proposes to amend Section 24 in a manner outside the scope of the Bill. Amendment 13 is out of order for the same reason.

Question—"That Section 9 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
(1) A list of vested holdings may be amended by the Land Commission with the consent of all the parties concerned or, subject to the provisions of this section, without such consent.
(2) Where the Land Commission propose to amend a list of vested holdings otherwise than on consent of the parties, the Land Commission shall serve in the prescribed manner on all the parties concerned notice of the proposal to make such amendment and shall afford to all such parties an opportunity to object to such proposed amendment.
(3) Every objection duly made to a proposed amendment of a list of vested holdings shall be considered and decided by the Land Commissioners other than the Judicial Commissioner and there shall be a right of appeal to the Judicial Commissioner from the decision of the other Land Commissioners on any such objection and the decision of the Judicial Commissioner on such appeal shall be final, save that an appeal shall lie on questions of law only from such decision of the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court.

I move amendment 14:

Section 10, sub-section (3). To delete all after the word "Commissioner" in line 8 down to the end of the sub-section.

This and a number of other amendments deal with matters of a different character. They deal with the appeal.

Cathaoirleach

Sixteen and seventeen are consequential on number fourteen.

I would be satisfied if this ruled some of the seven or eight amendments concerned although there are different considerations sometimes applying. The meaning of sub-section (3) is this: The Land Commission shall decide law and fact. There shall be an appeal from them to the Judicial Commissioner on questions of law and fact, but there is to be no appeal from the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court except on a question of law. What my amendment would mean is this: if you are to shut out an appeal from lawyer to lawyer on every question except a question of law why not shut out from the one lawyer you have in the Land Commission every question of fact also? If the Supreme Court are to be excluded from determining on appeal questions of fact why should not the other lawyer, the judge of the Land Commission, who is a judge of the High Court, be precluded from determining questions of fact also? Why not leave these questions of fact to the Land Commission? It may be suggested that our object is to embarrass or delay. We do not want any embarrassment or delay. We want the layman, the juryman, the man of fact, the Land Commissioner, to determine the question of fact; then let the question of law go to the Land Judge, Mr. Justice Wylie, who is a lawyer, and let all further appeals go to the Supreme Court. Let lawyers deal with law and let laymen deal with fact. That is the object of the present amendment and all the amendments consequential upon it.

[Mr. Counihan took the Chair.]

On a point of procedure. If this amendment is carried what happens? It seems to me that if all the words in line 8 after the word "Commissioner" down to the end of the sub-section are deleted, there is no question of a further appeal.

There are two amendments consequential on that.

If all words after "Commissioner" are deleted, then there is nothing to amend.

The Senator's point is that if the amendment is carried, all the other amendments on the same line go by the board.

I am rather in favour of the other amendments which come after this, and I will withdraw this particular amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendments—

15. Section 10, sub-section (3). After the word "appeal" in line 9 to insert the words "on questions of law only."

16. Section 10, sub-section (3). To delete in lines 11-12 the words "the decision of the Judicial Commissioner on such appeal shall be final."

17. Section 10, sub-section (3). To delete in lines 12-13 the words "on questions of law only."

These amendments are in parimateria. If you accept amendment 15, amendments 16 and 17 follow as a matter of course. As I said already, the object is to give an appeal on questions of law only to lawyers, and to leave the question of fact to laymen. In the Bill as amended you have limited the appeal to the Supreme Court to questions of law. I think the appeals to the Judicial Commissioner should be limited in the same manner.

This question was debated at great length on the Committee Stage of this Bill in the Dáil. It was agreed unanimously in the Dáil that there should be a right of appeal from the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court on questions of law. There is such a right under the Act of 1923, and, as I understand, there has been such a right under previous Land Acts. In the original draft of this Bill, there was no right of appeal from the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court.

It would be unfair to deprive the landlord or tenant of the right of appeal from the Land Commission to the Judicial Commissioner. I would ask Senators to bear in mind the peculiar constitution of the Land Commission. The Commissioners—the statutory heads of the Land Commission— are responsible for initiating proceedings for the compulsory acquisition of land. They are also responsible for fixing the price of that land. It is a most peculiar position. In such circumstances as these, and in view of the peculiar constitution of the Land Commission, I think it is only bare justice that there should be a right of appeal from the Land Commission to the Judicial Commisioner on questions such as price. I have discovered, as a result of very close investigation made in the Land Commission a few months ago, that 87 per cent of the appeals to the Judicial Commissioner are not from the landlords but from the tenants. That right has been availed of much more widely by the tenants than by the landlords or vendors. There has always been such a right of appeal from the Land Commission to the Judicial Commissioner, and, at this stage of the history of the land code in this country, I think it would be unfair and unjust to deprive the tenants or the landlords of such a right.

What the Parliamentary Secretary has just said would, at first blush, lead one to think that the tenant was the person who appealed most frequently. The Parliamentary Secretary must understand that one appeal by a landlord would probably rule 200 or 300 cases. That appeal would be taken on a test point, and would govern all the cases on that landlord's estate. An appeal by the tenant would only govern the case of his own little holding. These statistics are most misleading. I do not accuse the Parliamentary Secretary of wishing to mislead the House, but to quote figures on a matter which depends upon legal considerations seems to be absurd.

As a matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of appeals are by tenants in respect of information supplied by the landlords.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Acting-Chairman

Amendments 16 and 17 are consequential.

Section put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
(1) Where a holding included in a list of vested holdings would be a retained holding within the meaning of sub-section (6) of Section 28 of the Land Act, 1923, if that sub-section applied to it, such holding may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, be retained by the Land Commission.
(2) Sections 29, 33, and 34 of the Land Act, 1923, shall apply to holdings retained by the Land Commission under this section as fully as they apply to the retained holdings mentioned in those sections and accordingly the Land Commission shall have, in respect of holdings retained by them under this section, all the powers conferred on them by the said sections.

I move amendment 18:

Section 11, sub-section (1). To delete in line 18 the word "may" and to substitute therefor the word "shall."

This is the amendment to which Senator Wilson referred. I wish to insert the word "shall," for the reasons already expressed. I do not wish to have a sum exceeding £3,000 advanced to any one man for any purpose whatsoever. That amount is more than any one man is entitled to.

The word "may" is correct, as the Land Commission has, in some cases, a discretion as to retaining holdings or not, and the insertion of the word "shall" would be inconsistent with the exercise of that discretion. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Acting-Chairman

Amendment 19 is ruled out, as it is outside the scope of the Bill.

Would you permit a discussion on that question?

Acting-Chairman

I cannot do so.

We take a strong view of the question of the surrender of the evicted tenants.

Acting-Chairman

This amendment is outside the scope of the Bill.

Are we not entitled to hear on what grounds it is ruled out?

Acting-Chairman

Because it is outside the scope of the Bill. The question of evicted tenants does not enter into the Bill.

The question of surrender of the evicted tenants is a very awkward question to discuss, seeing that the landlords admit that there never was an Act which gave them better terms than this measure.

I suggest that the Senator bring in a Bill himself to deal with the evicted tenants.

Give us a majority and we will bring it in.

Section 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Amendments 20, 21 and 22 ruled out.

Amendment 23 (Colonel Moore) not moved.

Acting-Chairman

Amendment 24 is consequential on amendment 5.

SECTION 12.

(3) Every vesting order made under this section shall be expressed and shall operate to vest every holding specified therein in fee simple in the person named in such order as the person appearing to the Land Commission to be in occupation of such holding as tenant thereof or nominated by the Land Commission under Section 67 of the Land Act, 1923, to represent the tenant of such holding and shall also be expressed and shall operate so to vest such holding in such person subject to the following annuities, sums, and payments, that is to say:—

(a) the standard purchase annuity for such holding; and

(b) the additional annuity (if any) in respect of compounded arrears of rent added to the purchase money; and

(c) an additional sum (if any) equivalent to a proportion of the said annuities in respect of the period between the gale day on which the first instalment of the said annuities shall become payable and the next day on which dividends on land bonds are payable; and

(d) any sum which may be due to the Land Commission by the tenant in respect of the annual sum equivalent to the standard purchase annuity of the holding stated in the list of vested holdings, including the proportion of such annual sum for the period between the gale day on which the first instalment of such annual sum became payable and the day on which dividends on land bonds are payable next after the appointed day; and

(e) to any sum which may be due to the Land Commission by the tenant in respect of payment in lieu of rent or in respect of repayments required by this Act to be made by such tenant to the Land Commission.

(4) The Land Commission shall, in respect of every vesting order made under this section, afford to all parties concerned an opportunity for making objections to such order and the Land Commissioners other than the Judicial Commissioner shall consider and decide every such objection duly made, and there shall be a right of appeal to the Judicial Commissioner from every decision of the other Commissioners on any such objection, and the decision of the Judicial Commissioner on any such appeal shall be final, save that an appeal shall lie on questions of law only from such decision of the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court.

I move amendment 25:

Section 12, sub-section (3). To add at the end of the sub-section a new paragraph as follows:—

"(f) where the vesting of a holding has been delayed for more than twelve months from any cause other than neglect or default on the part of the tenant, the tenant shall be entitled to credit in the case of sales under the Land Act, 1923, for two instalments and in the case of sales under the preceding Irish Land Acts for three instalments of his purchase annuity."

Senators will observe that Section 12 deals with vesting orders in respect of vested holdings. Tenants complained with great justice that their holdings were not being vested. Various excuses were given from time to time—that the examiners could not work fast enough, that the title was very complicated, and so forth. The real reason, during the years 1910 to 1920, was that the British Government had to pay a high rate of interest for money and that they were losing on the transaction and losing heavily. That is the reason that vesting did not go on under the Act of 1903. The reason that vesting did not go on under the Act of 1923 was not that they could not get men to examine titles or inspectors to go out and examine fences, but because money was stringent at the time. Now money can be had on fairly easy terms.

The Ministry, guided, of course, by what Deputy Derrig, did for them in the Dáil some twelve months or two years ago, are now justly and properly taking advantage of the conditions of the money market. They are going to vest now. Here is what I want them to do. The meaning of the sub-section is that if there are still any tenants still under the Act of 1903 in whose cases vesting is not complete at the moment such tenants shall be entitled to credit for three instalments. I submit that that is only just, seeing that some of these people have been paying ten per cent. more than they should have been paying for the last 20 years. In the case of the Act of 1903, these sales have been postponed, not because of any default on the part of the tenant, and not because of any machinery in the Land Commission not being able to deal with it, but because this Government and the British Government did not advance the money until the money market had become easier. Why in that event should not the tenant be given three instalments and in the case of the 1923 Act two instalments?

Where is the money to come from?

Senator Sir John Keane will pay some of it. He got more than his share long ago.

[The Cathaoirleach resumed the Chair].

I cannot help contrasting the solicitude of Senator Comyn for the people who are delayed in vesting with the attitude shown by him in the past. We all know that thousands of tenants who purchased under the 1903 Act had not their holdings vested for twenty years afterwards, and they had to pay not an annuity but interest in lieu of rent during all those years. There was not one word of protest raised in this country then. The accusation was made that it was the British Government who could not find the money to buy out the landlords. I remember the Senator going down to Tyrone to use his eloquence very effectively in returning an officer of that Government in 1905 or 1906. I do not know whether that officer was Solicitor-General or Attorney-General at the time, but I know that Senator Comyn at that time had not a word about the grievances of the tenants whose lands had not been vested and no words of protest were used in all the years that followed up to the passing of the 1923 Act.

The Senator has a long memory.

The slogan then was "Don't embarrass the Government"; don't embarrass the British Government, whose coffers were bursting with thousands of millions which helped to finance the war afterwards. They were not to be embarrassed then, but now that a native Government with limited resources is in power, a Government that has to find the money from the Irish taxpayers in order to pay this compensation, we have Senator Comyn coming here to do a bit of window dressing. There was no word of censure then on the British Government and no question of compensation for the tenants when that Government was stifling land purchase.

I do not think that the House will be very much interested in Senator MacLoughlin's personalities. I think that the case made by Senator Comyn is one that can be argued in equity. If we are to rake up all this abuse, let us get right down and rake up the lot of it, and do a great deal of raking. A good deal of raking could be done in all sections of the House. I think that Senator Comyn has made a reasonable, fair and equitable claim for treatment of a number of people who, through no fault of their own, have been delayed for more than twelve months in the vesting of their holdings. Some of them have been delayed much longer than twelve months. I think it is a reasonable suggestion to make that some compensation should be awarded them for the fact that during a long period they have been paying much more than they would have to pay if they had been vested. The new sub-section suggested by Senator Comyn goes a long way to make a gesture towards compensation for the grievances under which the tenants, through no fault of their own, have laboured. For that reason I am supporting the amendment. I do not think that contributions such as that which Senator MacLoughlin has given us add anything at all to the wisdom of this House or do anything to guide its deliberations.

I just rise once again for the purpose of saying that my friend, Senator MacLoughlin has a very long and most inaccurate memory, because I never said in Tyrone or anywhere else that the officers of a foreign Government were not to be embarrassed, and I certainly never said any word against the tenant farmers of Ireland. I did go to Tyrone with Redmond Barry, who was a member of my own circuit when he was a Nationalist candidate——

A Nationalist candidate for North Tyrone! Does the Senator mean to convey to the House that the Attorney-General of the Liberal Government was a Nationalist candidate?

These Northern men do queer things. He could not get elected in Clare, but he could get elected in North Tyrone or in Donegal.

Not in Donegal.

He could, or in Derry, either.

Cathaoirleach

All this is outside the scope of the amendment.

I must apologise. It is outside the scope.

I want to say that I never accused Senator Comyn of saying "Don't embarrass the Government." What I said was that the slogan then used all over the country was "Don't embarrass the Government," and I said that the Senator made no protest then against the delay in the vesting of the land in the tenants. He supported the nominee of the Government that was a party to strangling land purchase.

Senator MacLoughlin and people like him do not make statements. They imply by innuendo or otherwise. They try to create an atmosphere and an impression.

I am stating facts and not making suggestions or innuendoes.

The innuendoes of the Senator are very much more effective than direct charges.

It is a terrible thing that these northern men could elect a Liberal. He would not be elected in any part of Munster.

There is no doubt that the tenant under the Act of 1923 has a grievance, but I do not at all agree with the reasons given by Senator Comyn as to this stringency of money. It was just as easy to print Land Bonds in 1923 or 1924 as it is to-day. It was not a question of finding the money. It was a question of regulating the interest of those tenants, and that took a lot of time. There was a bit of delay, and we are now getting to the end of it, but it was not at all a question of stringency. The Government are issuing or printing Land Bonds, and the tenant is paying the interest on this.

On a British guarantee.

Never mind the guarantee. The bonds are printed in Dublin and the interest is paid by the tenant. The question of financial stringency, does not arise at all.

I do not intend to confirm or approve of the wording of this statement; I am not competent to judge, but it does not strike me as very satisfactory. I think there is a distinct case to be made in favour of some credit to be given to the person who is aggrieved through failure on the part of the authorities in not carrying through what was the general belief at the time the 1923 Act was passed. I distinctly remember the impression created that there would be a vesting within a reasonable period—a matter of months or a couple of years. The idea of six or seven years was not in the minds of Deputies at that time at any rate. There has been a delay, and the production of this Bill is an indication of a recognition of the delay. Certain tenants have been made to suffer. I think the principle, embodied in this amendment, that some credit should be given to the tenants because of a loss due to a fault which was not theirs, is a sound one.

If we grant this, where are we going to end? What about the compounded arrears and the delay in regard to the payment of the purchase money? You cannot re-open the past.

The landlords are well enough off; they got ten per cent.

The Senator should bear in mind that the man who was getting £100 a year in the 'eighties is getting only £30 a year now; he has lost 70 per cent., and it is perfectly ridiculous to fling these loose statements about that the landlords are having too much.

That is a most astonishing statement.

It is perfectly true and I stand over it. Take the different reductions into account and the various remissions and loss of capital and it will work out that a man who was receiving £100 a year in the 'eighties is getting only £30 now.

Probably the Senator is including the British income-tax.

I do not quite understand this amendment and the Senator, in the course of his explanation, did not make it any clearer. I am inclined to agree with Senator MacLoughlin's gentle innuendo that this is window-dressing and that the Senator is not quite serious in moving this amendment.

I must say with great respect, that it is with the indulgence of the House the Parliamentary Secretary is permitted to deal with this Bill here. I think it is entirely wrong of the Parliamentary Secretary to say of any amendment proposed by a Senator that it is not proposed in good faith. We are not accustomed to that kind of manners.

Cathaoirleach

Did the Parliamentary Secretary say the amendment was not proposed in good faith?

He said it was window-dressing, and I think he should withdraw that remark.

He said that the amendment was not seriously intended.

That is practically the same thing, and I think it is an insult to the House.

If any Senator feels offended I am certainly only too happy to withdraw my remark. With regard to the amendment, it is not indicated there who is to pay the tenant or who is to make up the money, whether it is the State or the landlord. There is no indication from what source the money is to come. Why say two instalments and, going back ten or twelve years, why should we not say there should be a dozen or even twenty instalments? I have heard a great deal about landlords since I entered the Seanad, and I have heard them blamed for many things for which they are not really responsible. I ask Senators to bear one thing in mind. In the majority of cases the delay is due to the tenants themselves. Vesting in certain cases under the 1923 Act has been held up because the tenant refused to sign the agreement; he thought by refusing to sign when the agreement was presented to him that he might get some additional facility by way of grazing or turbary or something of that kind. Tenants in the congested areas have held up the vesting of land for many years. In such cases it would be grossly unfair to blame the landlords. If the amendment were accepted it would make the position of the Land Commission almost impossible. How is the Land Commission to get back the annuities paid for over two years?

The annuity after vesting.

How are they going to get it back from the people to whom it has been paid? From the accountancy point of view it would make the position of the Land Commission quite impossible. As regards the purchase money, that may have been distributed to six or a dozen claimants and the unfortunate vendor would have to proceed against all the claimants for their particular shares. The position would become Gilbertain and absolutely unworkable.

The Parliamentary Secretary has misunderstood the amendment. I will not say of him what he insinuated in regard to me. This amendment means that when the land is vested in the tenant the tenant becomes liable to pay an instalment on his annuity every half-year. If he is a 1903 man he gets credit for three instalments, and if he is a 1923 man he gets credit for two instalments. Anybody hearing that will know that the Land Commission will have to make that good. It is not a claim as against the landlord at all. The landlord is going out, and, as he himself admits, he is going out under the best Bill that ever was introduced from his point of view. I do not seek to make him pay anything. I say the Land Commission must find the money. Probably all the money that would be required for the purpose of this sub-section could be found if the British money that the Land Commission will now get under the Congested Districts Board, and which will come into the public Exchequer instead of going into the Land Bond Fund, were applied as it ought to be applied. The Parliamentary Secretary opposed Senator Moore's amendment, and we are going to contest this.

I understand the Senator is speaking of vesting in the tenants. Under this Bill the tenant gets the full benefit to which he was entitled under the 1923 Act. Consequently, there is no object whatever in the amendment.

What I wish to point out is——

Cathaoirleach

The Senator has already made five speeches, and he will not be allowed to speak again.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 23.

  • Michael Comyn, K.C.
  • Joseph Connolly.
  • Thomas Farren.
  • Thomas Johnson.
  • Thomas Linehan.
  • Seán E. MacEllin.
  • Colonel Moore.
  • Joseph O'Connor.

Níl

  • John Bagwell.
  • William Barrington.
  • Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
  • Miss Kathleen Browne.
  • R.A. Butler.
  • Mrs. Costello.
  • John C. Counihan.
  • James G. Douglas.
  • Michael Fanning.
  • The Earl of Granard.
  • Henry S. Guinness.
  • P.J. Hooper.
  • Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
  • Sir John Keane.
  • Cornelius Kennedy.
  • James MacKean.
  • John MacLoughlin.
  • William John Molloy.
  • Sir Walter Nugent.
  • M.F. O'Hanlon.
  • Bernard O'Rourke.
  • Michael Staines.
  • Richard Wilson.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Comyn and Connolly; Níl: Senators MacLoughlin and Wilson.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments 26, 27 and 28 not moved.
Section 12 put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
(1) Whenever it appears to the Land Commission that a holding included in a list of vested holdings is not a holding to which sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Land Act, 1923, as amended and extended by the Land Act, 1927, applies, the Land Commissioners other than the Judicial Commissioner shall, after serving notice in the prescribed manner on all parties concerned, make such order in the matter as the justice of the case shall require.
(2) There shall be a right of appeal to the Judicial Commissioner from every order made by the other Land Commissioners under the foregoing sub-section of this section and the decision of the Judicial Commissioner on any such appeal shall be final, save that an appeal shall lie on questions of law only from such decision of the Judicial Commissioner to the Supreme Court.
(3) When the purchase proceedings in relation to a holding are dismissed by an order made by the Land Commission under this section, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) the Land Commission shall pay into the land bond fund such sum as shall be required to redeem the land bonds issued for the purchase of such holding (including the contribution of the State to the standard price); and
(b) all parties shall be restored in all respects to their mutual rights and liabilities in relation to such holding as such rights and liabilities existed immediately before the passing of the Land Act, 1923; and

I move amendment 29:

Sub-section (1). After the word "holdings" in line 17 to insert in brackets the words "(but is not a holding vested in a tenant purchaser)".

In this section I find the expression "vested holdings" having rather a dual application. Previous to the passing of the 1923 Act what was understood as a vested holding was a holding vested in a tenant who was then paying an annuity and had his land registered and everything complete. But since the passing of the 1923 Act automatically the Act vested in the Land Commission all holdings with the exception of those mentioned in Section 24. I do not know whether it is intended by the Parliamentary Secretary that the Land Commission should go into the question of holdings vested in a tenant and divest these holdings— that is, to decide that the vesting was illegal and throw back the land into the state it was in previous to land purchase. I should like to know whether it is really intended to take up again the question of these vested holdings or to limit the functions of the Land Commission to the holdings vested in the Land Commission. I do not see why there should be any objection to accepting the amendment in order to make it clear to the public in general that it was not intended in any way to interfere with holdings which had already been vested. If those holdings are interfered with, it would prove that there is no finality whatever in the vesting of holdings in tenants if at some future time the Land Commission can come along and go into the question again. Once the Land Commission have completed their inquiries and investigations and made the order vesting in the tenant, that should be final and there should be no further investigation into the matter. In order to have the matter cleared up I move the amendment to exclude holdings already vested in tenant purchasers.

I wish to support the amendment. Senator Linehan has already gone into the matter fully, and I think there should be no objection to having it made clear.

I think the section as it is worded is perfectly clear, and I do not consider it is really necessary to insert the words contained in the amendment. The section refers only to cases where the final vesting has not taken place. If the Senator refers to the side-heading of the section he will find that it reads: "Dismissal of purchase proceedings in respect of certain vested holdings." There can be no purchase proceedings in respect of any holding already vested in a tenant. I think the section is perfectly clear, and I do not consider the words are really necessary.

They are really meaningless, and I do not think they could be very well incorporated in the section as it stands.

Considering that there is not any section in the Bill defining the meaning of the words "vested holding" I think the amendment is necessary to make it clear.

Yes, there are words in the Bill to that effect, you will find them defined in Section 9.

I am afraid I cannot see it, and in order to clear up the ambiguity I ask the House to accept my amendment. Even if it is superfluous, it is better to make it extra clear than to leave any doubt in the matter.

I suggest to Senator Linehan that it would be necessary to make some improvement in the wording of his amendment. I do not think it reads. The section reads "wherever it appears to the Land Commission that a holding included in a list of vested holdings, but is not a holding vested in a tenant," and so on—

That is right enough; it is their phraseology.

Cathaoirleach

"Whenever it appears to the Land Commission that a holding included in a list of vested holdings but not a holding vested in a tenant purchaser"—that will be clear enough.

If the words of the amendment are inserted exactly as they are on the paper the wording of the section I contend would not be good English.

Cathaoirleach

I would not agree with that. It would read thus: "Whenever it appears to the Land Commission that a holding (but not a holding vested in a tenant purchaser)" which it specifically proposes to exclude.

That would be all right, but on the Paper it says after the word "holdings."

Cathaoirleach

The word "holdings" there would then be wrong. It should be "holding."

If Senator Linehan refers to Section 9 (1) he will see that the words "vested holdings" are explained. The sub-section reads "(1) The Land Commission shall from time to time publish in the prescribed manner (in this Act referred to as lists of vested holdings) of tenanted land consisting of holdings in respect of which particulars have been furnished in pursuance of sub-section (1) of section 40 of the Land Act of 1923" and so on and so on. It is clear if you read this sub-section in conjunction with Section 13 of this Bill that holdings already vested in tenants cannot possibly be brought within the scope which the Senator anticipates.

But you can only ascertain by inference that it cannot be tenanted land.

There is no doubt about it. It is absolutely clear.

You have to run round the Acts of Parliament to make it clear.

The one follows clearly upon the other. Section 9 is really the central section of Part 2 of the Bill.

I would prefer to have it made clear. If the Parliamentary Secretary assures me that there is no intention of bringing in vested holdings under this section I am willing to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Amendments 30, 31 and 32 not moved.

I beg to move amendment 33: "Section 13, sub-section (3). After the word "restored" in line 39 to insert the words "as from the date of such order."

Under this section as already explained the Land Commission have power to dismiss the case of a holding which they discover did not come properly under Section 24 of the Land Act of 1923. In that case one of the conditions that would follow would be that all parties should be restored in all respects to their mutual rights and liabilities in relation to holdings as such rights and liabilities existed immediately before the passing of the Act of 1923. You must remember that it was no fault of the tenant that he should have been wrongfully included in the schedule of particulars furnished by the landlord. The landlord is the sole person to furnish that schedule. Having received that schedule the Land Commission places the tenant under payment of interest in lieu of rent.

The tenant has been paying that since 1923. That is eight years ago. He has been getting a 25 per cent. reduction, so that if this sub-section is allowed to stand as it is he will be thrown back, and will have to pay two years' arrears at once. He would have to pay that to the landlord in addition to the rent that has accrued every year since. I hold that that has occurred through no fault of the tenant and that he should not be called upon to pay any of this back money; that it would be quite sufficient for the landlord to receive in the future the full rent of the holding. During the last eight years he has got his full rent less the 25 per cent. That rent has been collected for him by the Land Commission. By the insertion of this amendment the sub-section will read:

All parties shall be restored as from the date of such order

that is the order made dismissing the application,

in all respects, to their mutual rights and liabilities, etc.

I think that is very fair and very just, and that it ought to meet with the approval of the Parliamentary Secretary.

I endorse what Senator Linehan has said, and would only add this, that the case will not be an isolated one. An amendment of this character, but not in the same words, was brought forward in the Dáil. There was an example given of where an action had been brought for eight years' arrears of the 25 per cent.—that is two years' rent. It was said "Oh, well, this will not happen again." It will happen in every case where proceedings are dismissed, and I should say that the Land Commission will be very lucky if there are not one or two cases of that kind in every estate. There will be a great number of such cases. Really, it is very dishonest, because the tenant could not have got on the list at all unless the landlord had returned him. The landlord returned this man as a tenant who was eligible for purchase. It turns out after nine or ten years that the holding is not eligible for purchase, and it is dismissed. Then, the landlord, who himself is responsible for putting the tenanton the list, turns around and sues for eight times 25 per cent rent—that is two years' rent. That is very unjust, and is due to the fault of the landlord. In this, the last Land Bill, I suppose, with our Irish courtesy, we are bowing the landlords out, and we are generous. At the same time, we ought to be just to the unfortunate tenants because the fault was the fault of the landlords. These cases will occur in almost every estate, and they should be provided against. For that reason I commend the amendment to the Seanad.

There are very few cases of the kind, and I do not see how I could possibly introduce legislation so that a tenant could come under the Land Act of 1923, have his payments reduced for five or six years, and then get no further benefit. The same thing happened under the Land Act of 1903. Certain purchase agreements were dismissed and the tenant and the landlord were restored to their mutual rights. Very few cases of the kind happen. After all, if a tenant is included in the schedule of particulars supplied to the Land Commission I am quite sure the landlord acted in a bona fide manner. He may have thought that the tenant was one who came under the Act of 1923, and it was only on subsequent investigation by the Land Commission it was discovered that the holding was one to which the Act did not apply. While I sympathise with these people, I fail to see how I could justify legislation for the purpose of bringing tenants in under the Act of 1923, so that they would get the benefit of reduced payments for a few years, and then be abruptly deprived of any further benefits under the Act. The whole position is a peculiar one from the point of view of the Land Commission. I do not see what I can do to alter the position so far as landlords and tenants are concerned.

Except to accept this amendment.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary consider the matter on the Report Stage?

I am afraid I could not.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 16.

  • R.A. Butler.
  • Michael Comyn, K.C.
  • Joseph Connolly.
  • Michael Duffy.
  • Thomas Foran.
  • Thomas Foran.
  • Thomas Johnson.
  • Thomas Linehan.
  • Seán E. MacEllin.
  • Colonel Moore.
  • Joseph O'Connor.

Níl

  • John Bagwell.
  • Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
  • Miss Kathleen Browne.
  • Mrs. Costello.
  • John C. Counihan.
  • Michael Fanning.
  • The Earl of Granard.
  • Henry S. Guinness.
  • Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
  • Cornelius Kennedy.
  • James MacKean.
  • John MacLoughlin.
  • Sir Walter Nugent.
  • Bernard O'Rourke.
  • Michael Staines.
  • Richard Wilson.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Linehan and O'Connor; Níl, Senators Brown and Nugent.
Amendment declared lost.
The Seanad went out of Committee.
Progress reported, the Committee to sit again to-morrow.
The Seanad adjourned at 7.15 p.m. until Thursday, April 16th, at 3 p.m.
Top
Share